This is DOGGCRAPP!!!

hmmm, I'm not sure if the hamstrings in WL is a good example of this law. Looking at the body is before the explosive pull (the 2nd pull), the knees are actually partially bent, so that would rule out the hamstrings being stretched. Plus, the explosiveness really comes from the triple extension at hips, knees, ankles. Maybe if you're talking about the quads, glutes and calf being stretched...

For some reason, I still feel that plyometrics and the Stretch-Shortencing cycle is the closest thing (that I can think of anyways) that can compare to this Law of the Heart for skeletal muscle. You should go for a doctorate degree and use this as your thesis, Karks, because I'd be interested to know the outcome.

To go off Mreik's and Focus' conversation: You body, joints, and muscles are never truly going in one specific plane. In a squat, it's not just hip extension and knee extension, there are muscles and force applied to joints in all three planes (sagittal, front, transverse).
 
If the starling law can be "activated" with very little stretch, then I suppose plyometrics could be used as an example, but only if it is activated with little stretch, since you don't stretch the muscle a lot in plyometric exercise. I might be mistaking what kind of stretch they mean, though. When I think stretch, I think of like when you stretch your hamstrings, they might just mean a very small stretch, eccentric contraction type of thing like in SSC.
And you do put your hams in a stretched position when doing o lifts, try it, slightly bent knees and bend forward. Dan John explains it in a video I have posted in the technique article sticky (it's at the bottom of the first post) Though it's kinda far out into the video and it takes a while to load.

I'm searching around now for SSC + cross bridges, etc to see if I find something.. I found one thing that seems to suggest that the rate of cross bridging increases with plyometric training, but I can't figure out if they mean as an adaption to training (which would not be what I'm interested in, or well, I am, but not right now :p) or something that happens right then and there because of the SSC.. the language is technical and I don't understand it :p

Yeah, I should go for a doctorate in this, but I'll have to finish my bachelor first, then a master, then a doctor degree :p
 
You are right with the OLs regarding the hamstrings, but to really elicit that stretch, you have to bend further forward, more like an RDL movement, especially with your knees flexed at the angle it's in during C&Js and snatches. Plus, when coming up off the floor, you hamstrings work concentrically with the glutes and back extensors to bring your body upright. That's where I was going with what I said before, you are loading the hamstrings rather than stretching them.....I'm still waiting for the video to load.

The increased rate of cross-bridging is an adaptation for plyometrics, because you are training for increased force production and quick response.
 
FunctionalTrain said:
You are right with the OLs regarding the hamstrings, but to really elicit that stretch, you have to bend further forward, more like an RDL movement, especially with your knees flexed at the angle it's in during C&Js and snatches. Plus, when coming up off the floor, you hamstrings work concentrically with the glutes and back extensors to bring your body upright. That's where I was going with what I said before, you are loading the hamstrings rather than stretching them.....I'm still waiting for the video to load.

The increased rate of cross-bridging is an adaptation for plyometrics, because you are training for increased force production and quick response.
Click to expand...

So with training plyometrics you will get a higher number of potential cross bridges, resulting in more cross bridges being formed the next time you try the exercise?
 
I can't say what is happening from one workout to the next, but I will say that over time, yes more cross-bridging will occur for a few reasons: you are increasing each motor unit's efficiency which will increase the amount of neural firings. With each activation potential coming from the nerves, the more calcium is release in the muscles resulting in MORE cross-bridging, and FASTER cross-bridging.

How's the training coming, anyways?? You've been at it long enough to maybe notice some changes.
 
Last edited:
I think frank starlings law has to do with calcium aswell, something about increasing calcium sensitivity when the muscle is stretched. I dunno exactly why, maybe stretching the filaments where the troponin C(I think that's what it is, the thingy that calcium binds to to reveal the binding site) is makes more of the troponin C visible or something. maybe in a muscle that is not stretched they are bundled up too close for calcium to attach to all of them. Either that, or something about the muscle being stretched (if so, I would like to know what) causing more calcium to enter the muscle, meaning that more of the troposin will have calcium bind to them and remove them selves from their blocking position.

I've read something about that stretching a muscle will increase the affinity for troponin c.. now I'm a bit uncertain what affinity means in this context.
 
Interesting.

I gotta watch what I say here to avoid confusion. Yes, I have read that stretching will decrease overlap with binding sites (a pretty recent study, actually).

It also got me thinking about spindle fibers, Golgi Tendon Organs, and the stretch reflex. The stretch reflex is not invoked during a static stretch, mostly during dynamic, and plyometric exercises.

There may be two points to this:

1. Greater reaction because of increased tension in a stretch, there is increased elastic energy.

2. The stretch reflex causes the motor unit to fire, causing more calcium to be released in the muscle. Calcium can bind better if the sites are not overlapped.
 
FunctionalTrain said:
Interesting.

I gotta watch what I say here to avoid confusion. Yes, I have read that stretching will decrease overlap with binding sites (a pretty recent study, actually).

It also got me thinking about spindle fibers, Golgi Tendon Organs, and the stretch reflex. The stretch reflex is not invoked during a static stretch, mostly during dynamic, and plyometric exercises.

There may be two points to this:

1. Greater reaction because of increased tension in a stretch, there is increased elastic energy.

2. The stretch reflex causes the motor unit to fire, causing more calcium to be released in the muscle. Calcium can bind better if the sites are not overlapped.
Click to expand...

ok, that makes sense. less overlapping = more places for cross bridges to occur.

In the stretch reflex, does the motore unit cause more calcium to be released into the muscle compared to if you just did a regular concentric contraction?
I would guess so, since the body probably sees it as some kind of emergency. More calcium + less overlap would definately be good conditions to create a lot of force.


about affinity:


5. Biology. the phylogenetic relationship between two organisms or groups of organisms resulting in a resemblance in general plan or structure, or in the essential structural parts.
6. Chemistry. the force by which atoms are held together in chemical compounds.
Click to expand...

could it have something to do with one of those? I'm not good with chemistry, so I wouldn't know the significanse if troponin C and calcium got a higher "chemical affinity"..
 
I'm not so certain I would use this chemical definition in this context. Rather than the "force to which compounds are bound," I would use "the ability to bind to chemical compounds."
 
there has gotta be some kind of illustration somewhere that shows what actually happens when you stretch the muscle that causes more cross bridges to be created. I've been looking, but I can't seem to find anything.
 
It doesn't necessarily cause more cross-bridging DIRECTLY. I believe it makes calcium easier to bind to troponinC, which will change the actin filament to show the binding sites to myosin, and THAT will cause more cross-bridging.
 
FunctionalTrain said:
It doesn't necessarily cause more cross-bridging DIRECTLY. I believe it makes calcium easier to bind to troponinC, which will change the actin filament to show the binding sites to myosin, and THAT will cause more cross-bridging.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was thinking about some sort of illustration showing how there would be less overlap of troponin C when you stretch the muscle (if that is indeed the case). I can picture it, and understand it, but I like pictures :D

I need a microscope and someone I can cut open while they are alive.. voulenteers?
 
[Focus] said:
Think he means | or --- , Karks. Body tends to move more like ) or ...uhh, closest symbol I can find is ~ . :p
Click to expand...

To go off Mreik's and Focus' conversation: You body, joints, and muscles are never truly going in one specific plane. In a squat, it's not just hip extension and knee extension, there are muscles and force applied to joints in all three planes (sagittal, front, transverse).
 
FunctionalTrain said:
To go off Mreik's and Focus' conversation: You body, joints, and muscles are never truly going in one specific plane. In a squat, it's not just hip extension and knee extension, there are muscles and force applied to joints in all three planes (sagittal, front, transverse).
Click to expand...

Do you mean for example how the abductors and adductors work in stabilizing the legs, etc? Or do you mean that no matter how one plane a movement looks, there is always microstopic (or just not very noticable) movement in other planes? or...?
 
Karky said:
Do you mean for example how the abductors and adductors work in stabilizing the legs, etc? Or do you mean that no matter how one plane a movement looks, there is always microstopic (or just not very noticable) movement in other planes? or...?
Click to expand...

Microstopic would be the ideal, maybe, in some cases. But often times, you want to be moving in all three, as you wouldn't be able to do it at all if you weren't. Can be more specific about this if you want, but ft has prettier jargon, so I figure let him.

For myself, I'm not terribly convinced it's even a good idea to aim for a straight line. Straight lines don't actually exist in nature, on any level. They're a human conception, and thus, inherently flawed. But uh, yeah. Let's... I forgot, I'm not allowed to talk about things. XD
 
[Focus] said:
Microstopic would be the ideal, maybe, in some cases. But often times, you want to be moving in all three, as you wouldn't be able to do it at all if you weren't. Can be more specific about this if you want, but ft has prettier jargon, so I figure let him.

For myself, I'm not terribly convinced it's even a good idea to aim for a straight line. Straight lines don't actually exist in nature, on any level. They're a human conception, and thus, inherently flawed. But uh, yeah. Let's... I forgot, I'm not allowed to talk about things. XD
Click to expand...

straigth lines only exist in the abstract "ideal world" (plato).. :p

but regardless, I haven no idea of what you're actually getting at. The body doesn't like to move in one plane of motion.. if you look closely enough, it will never move in one plane of motion, but what does this have to do with lifting technique? We wouldn't want to try to limit the movement to one plane of motion because we can't, that doesn't mean that in the bottom of a squat we should suddenly decide to send our right leg out on a trip to abduction land..
 
Karky said:
straigth lines only exist in the abstract "ideal world" (plato).. :p

but regardless, I haven no idea of what you're actually getting at. The body doesn't like to move in one plane of motion.. if you look closely enough, it will never move in one plane of motion, but what does this have to do with lifting technique? We wouldn't want to try to limit the movement to one plane of motion because we can't, that doesn't mean that in the bottom of a squat we should suddenly decide to send our right leg out on a trip to abduction land..
Click to expand...

'Course not. But, all's I'm sayin', is it is not always the case that a "straight line" is the most efficient path between two points (because distance travelled is not the only variable, and no, "time" elapsed is not the only other). A misconception common to people who do not understand higher level maths. Which would mean pretty much everyone in the "bodybuilding" universe, from what I can tell, haha.

But, in practical terms, depending on the particulars of a person's biomechanics, "ideal" form may not actually be ideal. This is all I'm saying. For example, if you can squat 200 more lbs looking like you're having an epileptic fit than you can with nice tight lines (and, of course, neither is out of control or causing you injury), then clearly the epileptic fit is better "form" than the pretty lift.
 
Karky said:
Do you mean for example how the abductors and adductors work in stabilizing the legs, etc? Or do you mean that no matter how one plane a movement looks, there is always microstopic (or just not very noticable) movement in other planes? or...?
Click to expand...

I was going for the first part of your response. Adductors and abductor working in the horizonal plane, internal/external rotators in the transverse plane. Flexors/extensors working the sagittal plane. All working in complete harmony (sometimes) for a desired motion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top